aaronwall

14 ms·

61.
by aaronwall 14y ago
Those of us who are in marketing, publishing, & start ups are not generally an accurate reflection of the general market. We tend to be far more aware of advertising than a typical web user. Most searchers are unable to distinguish the
62.
by aaronwall 14y ago
The ads are just another cost to the business, so that flows on through to the buyer, either through: - higher prices - worse customer service - fewer features - the company eventually going under as they get priced out of the ecosystem You
63.
by aaronwall 15y ago
I am with gcarswell on this one. +1 to her! I don't think search is an easy problem. And (where it is not conflicted by self promotional interests) Google does an amazing job of indexing, filtering & scoring. It is nearly unbelievable h
64.
by aaronwall 15y ago
>> checking for stolen content during the ranking process<< >Google should check for stolen content during the ranking process, huh? That's a cool idea. How exactly would they do that? They find 5 web pages that all have
65.
by aaronwall 15y ago
The core issue isn't just how one free Google service interacts with another free Google service, but how when combined they undermine the copyright & revenue potential for a content creator by displacing that person's work with Google'
66.
by aaronwall 15y ago
"If people legitimately like Google+ posts more than anything else on the internet, how would you have them behave?" So are you suggesting that might makes right or that if a site is popular it should be able to outrank the original content
67.
by aaronwall 15y ago
>it's childish of you to blame Google+ for it< It is childish to run a search company & create platforms for stealing content without checking for stolen content during the ranking process. All the hard work on scraper sites doe
68.
by aaronwall 15y ago
this issue isn't something new either. I mentioned Google+'s looted copyright content problem back in September http://www.seobook.com/the-doors Google creates the Panda algorithm against thin content & then they shag the ad impressio
69.
by aaronwall 15y ago
Absolutely right on the money, as usual. According to Compete.com, the % of downstream traffic from Google.com to YouTube has roughly tripled since the first Panda algorithm roll out 7 months ago.
70.
by aaronwall 15y ago
Based on the referrals the site sends (often 4,000+) I would have thought it was much higher than that. My guess is that there are a lot of lurkers & only something like 2% of site visitors even create an account.
71.
by aaronwall 15y ago
Maybe to attract employees? Or to try to appear likable as waves of austerity crash ashore & more people grow to hate the likes of Goldman Sachs & such?
72.
by aaronwall 15y ago
The big content farming companies understand that they have to stuff the "brand" ballot box. Which is why Demand Media is doing all sorts of stuff with promotional sponsors & Aol is closing down many of their niche sites at the same tim
73.
by aaronwall 15y ago
This presumes that the stuff that is ranking higher is more useful than the stuff that disappeared. That, unfortunately, is not always the case. A couple counter examples: http://www.seobook.com/huffington-post http://www.seobook.com/doo
74.
by aaronwall 15y ago
And I hope you stub your typing finger so bad they have to amputate both of your arms. :D You sound much more clever than you are. Or was that backwards?
75.
by aaronwall 15y ago
look in your web analytics. the dates that a lot of people saw sharp traffic declines are: Panda Update 1.0: Feb. 24, 2011 Panda Update 2.0: April 11, 2011 (about 7 weeks later) Panda Update 2.1: May 10, 2011 (about 4 weeks l
76.
by aaronwall 15y ago
'Some people must have benefited from Panda' Largely 2 groups of sites did - big brands & big media sites / sites with plenty of "brand" signal - smallish sites that were too small to get clipped when a lot of the larger (but not BIG BR
77.
by aaronwall 15y ago
AT&T made the same argument with their network as well. And the problem was that you couldn't see all the hidden costs baked into that while it was happening . You could only see those sorts of hidden costs after the fact, when waves o
78.
by aaronwall 15y ago
"The author took the lazy way out, appealing to emotion and outrage, rather than actually doing the experiments to see how google differentiates between subdomains and subdirectories." That presumes that the algorithm behaves consistently a
79.
by aaronwall 15y ago
A lot of the biggest brands see more "search" referrals that are just their brand name going through search engines. As web browsers replace address bars with search boxes the search engines in a very real sense act like a utility the redir
80.
by aaronwall 15y ago
I think a lot of people inside the field of SEO are trying to go broader so that if & when a particular search channel is a bit unreliable or unpredictable (look at how many sites were torched in Google's Panda update) they can still ke
81.
by aaronwall 15y ago
The big catch is that some of the signals are abstract and built on non-public data. And as Google puts more weight on things aligned with "brand" you can know that they are doing so, but that still doesn't solve the problem of needing to b
82.
by aaronwall 15y ago
It is worth noting that both Twitter and Facebook have worked to turn their "relevancy" signals into what amounts to ad units. The signal available there basically represents things along the lines of either viral humor pieces, large brand
83.
by aaronwall 15y ago
IMHO the big picture issue here is not just the increasing complexity to develop across, but that more and more layers of media are being commoditized and owned by the search providers. - Search engines let others build communities and filt
84.
by aaronwall 16y ago
There are all sorts of corporate SEO issues that just "appear" out of nowhere if a person doesn't consider it in advance. A few examples from our site upgrade to drupal 7... - comments permalinks were generating new identical pages under di
85.
by aaronwall 16y ago
Here is another great article for understanding the Google / Wikipedia ecosystem http://www.johnon.com/399/google-las-vegas.html
86.
by aaronwall 16y ago
The big issue here is that if you don't get other people to link to your stuff then Google has little way to distinguish quality vs non-quality, source vs copy, lower quality rewrite, etc. While many people find push marketing tasteless and
87.
by aaronwall 16y ago
I think there will always be some amount of great content accessible because brand & popularity are required to be able to charge, and there will always be someone who is either really hungry and willing to put the extra work in, or the
88.
by aaronwall 16y ago
The tricky part was that many of the things were happening in parallel...so it is somewhat hard to connect it all together. I sorta tried to push it as best I could into a cohesive organization with themes like "link spam, adsense, content
89.
by aaronwall 16y ago
The point wasn't just that Google has to handle spam, but also that they are stuck dealing with it even as they create/fund much of it ... and that their "solutions" for round 1 leave unforeseen exploit in round 2 or 3. To out it as an equa
90.
by aaronwall 16y ago
How else would you suggest visually laying out the patterns? Would you like it in a flash file instead? :D

More ›